Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return showing total income of Rs.3,39,860/-. The Assessing Officer added Rs.1,03,86,425/- under section 68 of the Act, representing cash deposits in bank accounts, as the assessee failed to provide explanations or documents to verify the source of these deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of non-submission of documentary evidence. In the interest of natural justice and considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's inability to provide evidence, and whether the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to present evidence before the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
68, 250, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: January 08, 2026 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.03.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016–17.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income was filed showing total income of Rs.3,39,860/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. It was also found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,03,86,425/-in saving bank account in Indusind Bank (Rs. 30,56,625/-) and ICICI Bank (Rs. 73,29,800/-). As there no explanation and no requisite documents were provided by the assessee to verify the source of such cash deposits, the Assessing Officer added the entire sum of Rs. 1,03,86,425/- u/s 68 of the Act.
Satya Subhas Ghoshal 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by holding that the assessee failed to file any credible evidence in support of the claim.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The ld. AR argued that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the absence of relevant documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The ld. AR stated that the assessee is now ready to submit relevant details and explanations and prayed for one more opportunity by restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration by affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing.
The ld. DR did not raise any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perusing the orders of the lower authorities, it appears to us that the Assessing Officer made the certain additions and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer only on the ground of non-submission of any documentary evidence to substantiate the cash deposits. Considering the above facts and on the request of the assessee, in the interest of natural justice, we inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee of hearing examining the explanations and documents which will be submitted by the assessee during the remand proceeding. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting all evidences/documents to substantiate his case.
Satya Subhas Ghoshal 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 8th January, 2026.